"Daniel Gibson" <metalcae...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:ijett7$1ie$5...@digitalmars.com... > Am 15.02.2011 23:00, schrieb Nick Sabalausky: >> "so" <s...@so.so> wrote in message news:op.vqyk3emumpw3zg@so-pc... >>> >>> Funny thing is the most important argument against size_t got the least >>> attention. >>> I will leave it as an exercise for the reader. >> >> That variables of type "size_t" are frequently used to store indicies >> rather >> than the actual *size* of anything? >> >> That it does nothing to help with 32/64-bit portability until you >> actually >> compile your code both ways? > > I don't understand that point. >
If you're writing something in 32-bit and you use size_t, it may compile perfectly fine for 32-bit, but the compiler won't tell you about any problems that will appear when you compile the same code for 64-bit (such as "can't implicitly convert"). Presumably the same would apply to writing something on 64-bit and then suddenly compiling for 32-bit. I'm not actually asserting that this is a big issue. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, I don't know. Just making guesses at what "so" sees as "the most important argument against size_t [that] got the least attention".
